BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Calling the 8x32 SV 4.8 and the 8x32 FL 5.0, in terms of optical "crispness" is nutzo. Not so. I've had them both for over a year. The FL drags far behind. Give it a try.

Keep in mind that Cornell is under a budgetery gun, nationwide gun really, so what can we do to drum up some bucks?? Yup, I know 'bout that crap. Wallowing in it for years. Ugh. It's got not so much to do with reality.

Mark

....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.

....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.

This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?

I suspect it tells us rather more about the testers than the binoculars but since we don't know the controls (if any) in the study or the distribution of the raw data it's probably best to ignore it all together.

I suspect it tells us rather more about the testers than the binoculars but since we don't know the controls (if any) in the study or the distribution of the raw data it's probably best to ignore it all together.

This is a complete test, and the typical ones are placed as they should.
I did not know EO made so many binoculars, they all must be in the test.

Zeiss has done well here, and as they have redesigned the whole
lineup, it shows.

One thing I noticed is they have the weights of many of the binoculars in
error. I quickly counted 8 that are off by 5 oz. or so. They are off on 6 of
the Zeiss models. They posted much less than actual mfr. posted weights.
That should have been caught by anyone doing a proof.

I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''

I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''

You're just saying that because they weighted Zeiss a tenth of a point more than Swaro. If it had been the other way around, you'd be singing a different tune.